From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WXEbZ-0006uo-5a for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:49:13 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.42; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com ([209.85.215.42]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WXEbY-0007Kn-8n for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:49:13 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ec20so5273594lab.1 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:49:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.186.98 with SMTP id fj2mr2004520lbc.54.1396896545578; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:49:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6D6E55CE-2F04-4C34-BEE6-98AEF1478346@bitsofproof.com> References: <5342C833.5030906@gmail.com> <6D430188-CE00-44B1-BD8C-B623CF04D466@icloudtools.net> <6D6E55CE-2F04-4C34-BEE6-98AEF1478346@bitsofproof.com> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:49:05 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Tamas Blummer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) 1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see ] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 1.5 SF_NO_SPF_SPAM SF_NO_SPF_SPAM X-Headers-End: 1WXEbY-0007Kn-8n Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:49:13 -0000 On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote: > BTW, did we already agree on the service bits for an archive node? I'm still very concerned that a binary archive bit will cause extreme load hot-spotting and the kind of binary "Use lots of resources YES or NO" I think we're currently suffering some from, but at that point enshrined in the protocol. It would be much better to extend the addr messages so that nodes can indicate a range or two of blocks that they're serving, so that all nodes can contribute fractionally according to their means. E.g. if you want to offer up 8 GB of distributed storage and contribute to the availability of the blockchain, without having to swollow the whole 20, 30, 40 ... gigabyte pill. Already we need that kind of distributed storage for the most recent blocks to prevent extreme bandwidth load on archives, so extending it to arbitrary ranges is only more complicated because there is currently no room to signal it.